MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411961490 · doi:10.1080/17518423.2025.2526358

The relationship between emotion regulation and activity performance and quality of life in adolescents with cerebral palsy

2025· article· en· W4411961490 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ayşe Göktaş, Esma Özkan

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Neurorehabilitation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCerebral palsyPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyQuality of life (healthcare)Physical medicine and rehabilitationCognitive psychologyClinical psychologyMedicinePsychiatryPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Emotional and activity difficulties may affect adolescents' daily lives with cerebral palsy (CP). Therefore, it is important to evaluate factors associated with emotion regulation in adolescents with CP. This study aims to determine how adolescents with CP use emotion regulation strategies during their interactions and to examine the relationship between emotion regulation, activity performance, and quality of life. METHODS: The data was obtained using the Regulation of Emotions Questionnaire (REQ), The Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL), and the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM). The relationship between the scale scores was tested using the Spearman correlation coefficient. RESULTS: < .05). CONCLUSIONS: These results indicated that adolescents' activity performance and quality of life with CP were associated with emotion regulation skills. It is very beneficial for occupational therapists to consider emotion regulation skills to improve activity performance and adolescents' quality of life with CP.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental NeurorehabilitationSame topicCerebral Palsy and Movement DisordersFrench-language works237,207